Fig. 1. BCC single-cell with different strut angles. (a) 60°;(b) 90°;(c) 120°

Fig. 2. Compression samples with different strut angles. (a) 60°; (b) 90°; (c) 120°

Fig. 3. Finite element model. (a) Boundary condition (U: displacement; U_R: rotating angle); (b) smoothing process

Fig. 4. Macrostructure, microstructure, and phase of compression samples. (a) Macrostructure; (b) microstructure of XOY and XOZ cross-sections; (c) XRD patterns of XOY and XOZ cross-sections

Fig. 5. Compression properties of lattice structure compression samples with different strut angles. (a) Stress‒strain curves; (b) compressive strength

Fig. 6. Energy absorption characteristics of lattice structure compression samples with different strut angles. (a) Energy absorption capacity; (b) energy absorption efficiency

Fig. 7. Stress nephograms of the lattice structure compression samples at different deformation stages

Fig. 8. Distribution and force analysis of martensitic phase in TC4 titanium alloy fabricated by SLM

Fig. 9. Deformation diagrams of strut in lattice structure compression samples with different strut angles

Fig. 10. Deformation mechanism of a single strut in single-cell

Fig. 11. Simulation results for effective plastic strain distributions of lattice structure compression samples with different strut angles under quasi-static load

Fig. 12. Fracture images of lattice structure compression samples with different strut angles. (a)‒(c) 60°; (d)‒(f) 90°; (g)‒(i) 120°

Fig. 13. Stress‒strain curves of lattice structure compression samples with different strut angles obtained by tests and simulations

Fig. 14. Comparison between simulation and test results of lattice structure compression samples